I've seen a few of these articles and tbh, no. There is no reason WW should get any Oscars.

It was a average film, at best, driven by PC/SJW hype to sky high levels of reverence. There is nothing in it that justifies the level of praise it has gotten.

The cinematography is average, the music is average, the writing is average. Chris Pine is his usual charismatic self. Gal Gadot is terrible when she is acting (looks decent when she is in the action with her mouth shut). In short, there is nothing Oscar-worthy about this film.

If we are talking about Oscar contenders in the CBM genre, Logan is MILES ahead of WW in every way. If anything, that should be nominated for an Oscar in at least 2 categories off the top of my head (Best Supporting Actor - Patrick Stewart and Best Picture). But since that ain't gonna happen, I sure as hell can't think of any categories WW should be nominated in.

kikass2014 wrote: I've seen a few of these articles and tbh, no. There is no reason WW should get any Oscars.

It was a average film, at best, driven by PC/SJW hype to sky high levels of reverence. There is nothing in it that justifies the level of praise it has gotten.

The cinematography is average, the music is average, the writing is average. Chris Pine is his usual charismatic self. Gal Gadot is terrible when she is acting (looks decent when she is in the action with her mouth shut). In short, there is nothing Oscar-worthy about this film.

If we are talking about Oscar contenders in the CBM genre, Logan is MILES ahead of WW in every way. If anything, that should be nominated for an Oscar in at least 2 categories off the top of my head (Best Supporting Actor - Patrick Stewart and Best Picture). But since that ain't gonna happen, I sure as hell can't think of any categories WW should be nominated in.

This article was a good laugh though.

Peace.

/K

There it is. And the picture is just pathetic, no way a woman with such a feeble frame should ever be cast as Wonder Woman, Goddess of the Amazons.

I can't judge how good a candidate the movie is for an award (a lot of politicking goes on in the Academy), but it was a damned enjoyable film for me and obviously many others, given the box office take and Tomatometer.

All the talk now of it being a possible winner is likely just part of the studio's campaign. But there is no doubt the movie made an impression, and sometimes that's what the Academy goes for.

Remember, they are promoting their own business with the awards. Their validation tends to drive viewers wants and studios plans.

As much as I would love to see Wonder Woman win an Oscar there is no way it is going to happen. The genre of movies based on comic books just isn't taken seriously by Academy voters, no matter how good the movie is.

(It would be hilarious if it did though. Can you imagine the butt hurt from the DCEU haters if Wonder Woman won an Oscar for Best Picture or Direction? Heck, they were butt hurt when Suicide Squad won for Hair and Make Up!)

Kikass, I really liked the WW movie and my wife loved it. One of the first things that you learn in physics is that all observations are dependent on your frame of reference. I would guess that you are a guy who knows a lot about WW, DC and comics in general. My wife and her girlfriends know little of any of that, but they loved the movie. Why? Because for once, a woman was the hero and all of them would love to have her body, looks and powers! And I bet that half the people who saw this movie were female. What I am saying is that this movie was made to appeal to a wider audience than just male comic book readers and fans of the genera. Clearly, they were very successful in this endeavor.

This is fine. I am not saying there is anything wrong with liking the film. I think people misunderstand me when I critique pieces, so I just want to make this clear. I am not critiquing your TASTE in the piece (in this case the WW film). Hell I like a lot of things that are rubbish - films, books, comics, music.

One of the first things that you learn in physics is that all observations are dependent on your frame of reference.

Agree. And the same thing applies in critical thinking, in this case film critique. Weather I like the film or not is irrelevant. I am responding to what is on the screen and playing out in front of me.

My wife and her girlfriends know little of any of that, but they loved the movie. Why? Because for once, a woman was the hero and all of them would love to have her body, looks and powers! And I bet that half the people who saw this movie were female.

That's great. I am not saying anything against that.

The topic was "Wonder Woman for Oscars" and the link was to an article (of which there have been a couple) as to why it should get one. My response is no, it shouldn't get any. Now, I follow that up by saying WHY I think this (as you need to in critical thinking, otherwise its just mindless rambling imo). And its because it is NOT GOOD ENOUGH to win any. There are better films (and most likely better ones to come out still) that deserve Oscars. In a competition where there are limited spots, you need to earn your spot. This applies to the Oscars. You can't nominate everything.

Now if you feel otherwise, that's great. Please put forward your reasoning as to why you think it should win ( I assume you fall into that camp, I could be wrong though). Debate is healthy, its fun, its not personal.

One thing though, your argument cannot be "it should win because I like it"

I have a very analytical mind and for many years I earned my living using it. I am not a very good writer ( and an even worse speller) which is why I refrain from ever critiquing anyone else's work. What I have learned writing here has helped me immensely at work and in other endeavors.

I grew up in LA and went to school with some of the kids of stars. I have watched the Oscars for years.
Frequently, the best movie doesn't win. Politics, political and emotional sentiments get factored in to who wins what. This is a female block buster with a female director. I thought the costumes were fabulous as did my wife. I loved the scenery on the Island as well. I will be suprised if it does not get some nominations and maybe an Oscar or two. I doubt that it will get best picture or best actress but I will be pulling for it just the same.

I really enjoyed the movie, but I have not seen many of the other competing films. In Phoenix, there is a fabulous film critic by the name of Bill Goodykoontz. He reviewed it and gave it 3.5 out of 5 stars. He said that there was enough generic action sequences and cgi scenes for 20 movies, but he thought Gal was great in it and that this movie was a lot of fun to watch. 94% of rotten tomatoe viewers also loved it.

Frequently, the best movie doesn't win. Politics, political and emotional sentiments get factored in to who wins what. This is a female block buster with a female director.

I wholeheartedly agree this is, generally, the case, in particular with the Oscars.

I thought the costumes were fabulous as did my wife. I loved the scenery on the Island as well. I will be suprised if it does not get some nominations and maybe an Oscar or two. I doubt that it will get best picture or best actress but I will be pulling for it just the same.

Excellent. If I am honest, I agree with you with regards to the costumes. They were good. Oscar-worthy good, I'm not so sure as I imagine something like Dunkirk or other period pieces coming out will probably/do rival it. Period pieces in particualr usually win here, or at least get nominated. Though to be fair, this is probably the category most likely for WW to get a nod.

I can pretty much guarantee you it will NOT get Best Picture or Best Actress (or even get mentioned). So we agree/disagree slightly there

I am not a very good writer ( and an even worse speller) which is why I refrain from ever critiquing anyone else's work.

In this regard I think you put yourself down. Your writing and spelling are fine. And I look forward to engaging critical minds more then most things. I hope we can engage in more discussions in the future

I have illegible printing and handwriting and to top it off, I am slow at it as well.
I have never been able to spell. Lucky for me I took typing in junior high and after 1 semester I could do 18 wpm and after 2 semesters, a whopping 35 wpm.

Along about 1999, work said that we were going all electronic, and if we could not get up to speed, it would not be a problem. They would just fire you and replace you with someone who could type. It took a bit, but I went from about 20 wpm to 60 in about 2 years. With the introduction of tools like word perfect, word and spellcheck, not being able to spell was not a barrier to writing which I had always wanted to do but couldn't. Guess where I started?

ace191 wrote: I have illegible printing and handwriting and to top it off, I am slow at it as well.
I have never been able to spell. Lucky for me I took typing in junior high and after 1 semester I could do 18 wpm and after 2 semesters, a whopping 35 wpm.

Along about 1999, work said that we were going all electronic, and if we could not get up to speed, it would not be a problem. They would just fire you and replace you with someone who could type. It took a bit, but I went from about 20 wpm to 60 in about 2 years. With the introduction of tools like word perfect, word and spellcheck, not being able to spell was not a barrier to writing which I had always wanted to do but couldn't. Guess where I started?

Being able to properly spell is only half the job (the sweaty and painful part) for a writer, the other equally important half is being able to put ideas on paper, hammer them into a coherent and effective scene and then get several scenes stringed together ina way that doesn't make the reader go "WTF". On this count I think you're quite skilled and I don't think anyone who see the constant improvement between chapter 1 and 14 of Turnabout can say otherwise.

(formerly Anon, still Librarian)

"What is the point of having free will if one cannot occasionally spit in the eye of destiny?" ("Gentleman" John Marcone)